Originally Posted by skybolt

Let's get something straight. I'll be happy to argue issues and history. I won't get into a ****ing contest about honesty/dishonest when that discussion involves persons not able to defend themselves.

When it is implied that I am dishonest, I'm happy to defend myself.......up to the point that my defense involves showing something negative about a person not in this discussion. Most of what you want to discuss eventually ends up in "he said, she said" and I see no reason entering into that discussion.

I don't really see any argument on your part. You've made claims about certain unnamed spirit pilots. Making claims is not an argument, sorry.

Speaking of sorry. I'm sorry you got furloughed. Spirit did furlough too deeply when they did so, no question.

I'm not backing out of anything. See my response to shift work. When you present facts vs perceptions, then I'll respond in kind. If I'm wrong I'll admit it.

Go ahead and tell us what you think of people who argue like I do. You're anonymous, no one will be able to retaliate.

You know who I am. Yet you hide behind anonymity and then deride my style of argument. Nice.

Regarding your last comment about "hard core opposition", your anecdotal evidence proves absolutely nothing. It doesn't prove that no one wants to fly with Mr or Mrs "200 credit hours", although it might prove that his/her schedule constantly changes as he/she trades/drops/manipulates his/her schedule. Try arguing something besides your perceptions next time.